Could this be "CCCP" and fell from space? Or Part of the long gone lettering residue from the PMB that crashed on Howland?

Good grief, we have now arrived at space ships. You can't make this stuff up. Next its aliens, Jimmy Hoffa or early hominid habitation. Tighar is brave to have an online forum in which people can speak openly.

YOU said space ships and aliens. Good grief is right!However, space debris, rocket debris, falls in the Pacific frequently, so the idea of an old soviet booster piece is not out of the realm of possibilities, however unlikely, even using scrapped American aluminum for parts on early rocket designs.Tighar is exploring the idea that this one piece may have come from a patch on Amelia Earharts plane.THAT you can accept. The millions of pounds of space junk falling in the ocean is science fiction for you?

I realize I should have not even speculated, by saying space junk or from the PBM crash, someone would jump on that.The real question I had was if there are visible remnants of two C's visible? Or perhaps two "O"s

Let's keep an open mind, if something is staring you in the face with the naked eye, perhaps alternate light sourcing or scrapings could be of use in that area in validating this artifact.

« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 10:01:01 AM by tom howard »

Logged

jgf1944

Fellow Explorers; Betty's Notebook provides apparent evidence that Noonan wanted to leave the aircraft during the radio session Betty heard and transcribed. To wit, three times the man in the Notebook spoke to the woman (ostensibly Earhart), "let me out." The motivation(s) for those words is analyzed in a paper on the Notebook soon to be submitted to TIGHAR. For present consideration, imagine that Noonan urgently wanted to exit but Earhart had forbidden that behavior. In kind, she could block an exit through the cockpit hatchway by simply staying in her seat and disallowing Noonan stepping on her. Earhart could not, however, do that and simultaneously guard the fuselage door. Therefore, if Noonan began kicking out "the patch" area, it appears the door may have been incapable of being opened (FN's simplier exit alternative). One thing that weighs against the Noonan kicking scenario is that he ostensibly had a serious injury, leaving in question his capacity to produce the required forceful behavior. (Of course other kicking scenarios remain that do include Earhart.) High kudos to the "patch team" for setting a such a high bar regarding the acquisition of empirical evidence in the Earhart history domain. j. guthrie ford

We know that the crew were able to transmit messages from the aircraft for up to seven days: the last credible record in Bob Brandenburg’s catalog is #175 at 2018 Gardner time on July 7th. Yet during the late morning of the 9th , around 36 hours later, Lambrecht was unable to identify the aircraft in the surf.

....

This means that on the 9th the plane was no longer on the reef, so sometime before then, a distinct, discrete event must have taken place to remove the aircraft from its landing spot.

A strong possibility would seem to be that the landing gear that held the aircraft in place against the continuous back and forth movement caused by wave action, eventually succumbed to fatigue, letting the plane drift away and sink down the slope, substantially intact. The landing gear itself, anchored in a crack in the reef, would then later become the Bevington object.

Another source of forces is the weather. A squall or any high winds could well subject the Electra to sudden catastrophic forces, either destroying it or causing it to break free from the reef and sink. However, from the logs of the USS Colorado available on line, it would appear that the weather in that vicinity remained relatively stable during the timeframe under consideration (perhaps more investigation is needed to identify the actual weather patterns at Gardner).

I'm not sure how much use the logs of the Colorado would helpThis link is to an article about the difficulties of weather prediction in the pacific regionhttp://www.soest.hawaii.edu/met/Faculty/businger/PDF/HawaiiFcsting.pdfIt seems localized storms and even water spouts ( admittedly rarely) can form with little warning, so it is still possible that a local squall and high tides could have combined to do some damage to the Electra on the reef and yet would not have been observed by the Colorado a few hundred miles away.

For those who are more knowledgeable about aircraft structure: does it seem likely that the area around the patch (especially if some structural damage in that part of the Electra had been done during the the hard landing in Miami) would have been the weakest part of the body? Is it likely that if the Electra was battered about a bit on the reef after losing the landing gear that this would have been the first site where the planes fuselage would have given out?

All lightheartedness aside, we actually use guidance in my industry for strength in structures to resist the effects of falling space debris, kid you not.

I think the 'A D' we see, for all the controversy it also generates, is a reliable indicator that we're dealing with aircraft aluminum of American manufacture; given the airman quality of the work we see on it and the presence of an AD456 2117 material rivet, also American, we seem to be dealing with something that came from an airplane (THE airplane, some of us hope, hence we continue to research). It does not seem to have originated from a shipping box, etc.

As to 'how the panel failed', I think while we can conjecture for ideas and fun, we're far from fully understanding this part. For one thing, the failure evident along the 'shark's teeth' suggests a tensile failure of 2024 material that should withstand nearly a ton of force per running inch: to initiate the crack we see, someone would have to repeated bang on that thing with sustained forces of something approaching half that, IMO, to initiate a crack in otherwise undamaged metal; after that, they'd need to keep up a very strong effort to keep the crack moving along that edge.

In fact, the failure edge is a bit more complex than I just described - it isn't in pure tension, but many segments of the failure path are partly in shear - a LOT of force to do that. The somewhat regular pattern suggests to me (I'm not a metallurgist or a fracture mechanics engineer) one sustained event.

That all said, my status as an inexpert observer as to this failure should underscore the need we have for truly expert evaluation if we are to understand what happened to cause the failure we see.

ok Jeff the AD establishes it is American aluminum.Did you check out the area I thought contained two letters?Blow up the picture I attached, it's cropped and easy to see, the hue was adjusted to see easier.Just enlarge it to 200% to see it easier.If that is corrosion, it is amazing it came out looking like side by side C's, I don't look for camelsin the sky, this is pretty blatant, follow the curves of each "letter" or corrosion.It could be a freak coincidence, but so far I haven't seen an expert comment on it.

My eyes may be pulling a TM on me, and I am seeing things, but does anyone else see two "C"'s right above the "AD"?

Tom - I have long thought that the CDC should investigate to find out if this site somehow emits any invisible cyber toxic waste or some or other unknown and unseen factor that might account for the epidemic of apophenia that one sometimes sees here. But since you asked, and at risk of adding myself to the list of apophenia sufferers, yes, I can see what you are referring to as the two C's. To me, the second one appears to be the most striking, since it has remnants of an exactly C-shaped curve as well as an unusually straight horizontal line at the upper right termination of the C, at approximately 2 or 3 o'clock as you look at it. Its the only straight line I can find in that picture (other than the AD). I don't think you are seeing things, the shapes do seem to be there. That said, I also notice a very large blob of the same color or material to the right of the two Cs. This blob is obviously too large to be part of any lettering and suggests to me that what appear to be the two C's are probably random, coincidental blobs of that same material/residue/oxidation as well. I also see the scratches through the AD that you mention, but they seem pretty superficial and at least some of them go through the CC area as well. I guess some cosmonaut could have scratched them out, but seems like a longshot, as you seem to realize too. It's still a good catch though and may be worth following up on.

"The panel could have been kicked out by AE or FN"So where was the panel before it was discovered in the 1991 expedition? There was a previous expedition two years earlier which didn't find it washed up on the surf line.

"pried out by an islander" The wreckage was visible then even if it was under water otherwise how would they have known it was there?

ok Jeff the AD establishes it is American aluminum.Did you check out the area I thought contained two letters?Blow up the picture I attached, it's cropped and easy to see, the hue was adjusted to see easier.Just enlarge it to 200% to see it easier.If that is corrosion, it is amazing it came out looking like side by side C's, I don't look for camelsin the sky, this is pretty blatant, follow the curves of each "letter" or corrosion.It could be a freak coincidence, but so far I haven't seen an expert comment on it.

Tom,

I can see what I'll call for now a 'suggestion' of two "C" images. I have also long noticed what I wondered about being another "D" to the left and above the established "AD" (and thereby about mid-waterline between the "C's" and "AD").

The "C's" image is on a different alignment, i.e. the waterline they are 'normal' to is not parallel to that of the AD waterline.

All of which is quite possible as some form of printed matter that we don't yet understand, I suppose. I'm more willing to say that after having seen a wider variation of aluminum stock printing in the dusty metal of the USAF Museum, etc. than I ever would have thought existed.

That said, I am at least equally uncertain that we're actually seeing printed C's (or another D, as I mentioned), but more likely some phenomena of nature acting on man's product. However, I surely would not object to better eyes than mine analyzing this imagery, i could be wrong. That said, I think Diego's point about similar appearing but more blobbish images of same color / apparent make-up to the C's might mean exactly what he suggested: random stuff of a suggestive 'design'.

I've also long noticed the scratches. I do not know their origin. My impression of them from the beginning has been that a) someone made some attempt to clear crud from the metal, and b) might have stopped as they realized that this was a crude method and that what they were hoping to see might actually be damaged had they continued. The scratches may also be a side effect of the artifact lying in an abrasive environment for much of it's life. I do not believe that anyone was playing hob with factual evidence, just in case that is wondered. Thinking about that now, had that been the case, and I see no reason for it, it would be pretty amateurish by what we see in these few scratches - I'd think a more deliberate burnishing would be the case.

I think we have an AD here; the other possibilities would have to be investigated and better established by others, in my thought. I admit a wariness of apophenia, it can be most infective. But who knows, maybe you've spotted another dimension in the set of mysteries that 2-2-V-1 has come to be.

- Jeff Neville

Former Member 3074R

« Last Edit: October 31, 2014, 07:10:38 AM by Jeffrey Neville »

Logged

jgf1944

Hello Jeffrey Neville; Please let me call on your clarity of expression for an explanation or two. "The Patch" replaced a window. The Patch shows rivet holes, some of which mark where The Patch was apparently fastened to stringers. Were those stringers in place when the patch space was a window? That does not strike me as likely, and so were the stringers installed at the time The Patch was installed in Miami? Lastly, I believe I read that the A and D shapes are on the exterior surface of The Patch. If the A and D are part of a probuct label, then it appears The Patch was installed with the label facing the outside. Is that characteristic in the world of aircraft aluminum installation? (I wonder if the AD might be discernible to advanced photography in any pre-loss images of the Electra? That would nail it down for me!) Many Thanks, Guthrie Ford #3422

The scratches may also be a side effect of the artifact lying in an abrasive environment for much of it's life. I do not believe that anyone was playing hob with factual evidence, just in case that is wondered.

That's my vote for the majority of the scratches. Every tried walking barefoot over coral? I don't recommend it. And don't ask me how I know that.

Hello Jeffrey Neville; Please let me call on your clarity of expression for an explanation or two. "The Patch" replaced a window. The Patch shows rivet holes, some of which mark where The Patch was apparently fastened to stringers. Were those stringers in place when the patch space was a window? That does not strike me as likely, and so were the stringers installed at the time The Patch was installed in Miami? Lastly, I believe I read that the A and D shapes are on the exterior surface of The Patch. If the A and D are part of a probuct label, then it appears The Patch was installed with the label facing the outside. Is that characteristic in the world of aircraft aluminum installation? (I wonder if the AD might be discernible to advanced photography in any pre-loss images of the Electra? That would nail it down for me!) Many Thanks, Guthrie Ford #3422

I'll try -

The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -

The stiffener (like a 'stringer', but lighter) and upper stringer (another double row) that traversed the window aperture were truncated by whomever installed the window. The stringer at the bottom of the window (which I'm calling a 'stringer' because it is a more major member by virtue of a double row / being wider than the typical stiffener, rather like the upper double-row member that was truncated) was left intact, and in fact used for the lower edge of the window coaming attachment. We can see this in the various 'window' pictures.

The one set of surviving rivet holes on 2-2-V-1 that may relate to the existing airplane 'stringers' would be those along what we believe to be the lower edge of the 'patch', i.e. the 'double row' where we see the shark-tooth failure. The other fastener holes are where intermediate stringers may have been installed, as I've explained in the bulletin, etc. to help give rigidity and shape to the 'patch' (cover, says I...). To answer you in part, yes, those extra stiffeners would have been installed in Miami to ensure a durable shape and prevent unwanted flex, or oil canning of the membrane (the 'skin'). I believe the picture of the shiny, reflective 'patch' in Miami does reveal a rivet pattern that appears to match 2-2-V-1, but others may see that differently: I've heard 'clouds' suggested, but the 'rivet' images / lines are at too odd an angle in my view for clouds along the horizon, and odd that a couple of rows of 'clouds' happen to parallel the other rivet lines we see on the ship.

These points are both a strength, and a weakness in the hypothesis -

- A strength in that we're looking at a non-standard piece of construction on the Lockheed, and 2-2-V-1 has many characteristics of a non-standard installation, i.e. repair, or modification: the 'patch' is not a direct fit to any stock location on the Electra (or any other type that visited the area) that we've found; further, the way the rivet lines are laid out suggests something other than a 'stock' installation, as well - something more like a post-production field modification effort of some sort. That fits what we see in the Miami pictures as a last minute 'patch'. It could fit another 'field effort' on a different airplane too, but the method of construction (lightly braced, spacing of members, etc.) tends to support an airframe on the order of the Electra, not the military types we examined as potential candidates.

- A weakness in that we have the obvious problem of not being able to prove a direct and true fit to the Electra, rivet by rivet, which would be nice - and barring the emergence of a miraculously clear picture of 'the patch' in Miami or somewhere subsequent, rivets and all, necessary to absolutely clinch this hypothesis. We are far from blind from these realities.

The remnants of the printed material do, I believe, lie on what would have been the exterior surface. It can be done either way - we've seen examples of aluminum markings turned to the interior, and others of them turned outside. Neither would surprise me. The stuff they used to mark this kind of material apparently had some effect of 'etching' or leaving a permanent trace, even if buffed off: what we see on 2-2-V-1 is not ink per se, but some visual remnant of the process the ink induced, i.e. micro-pitting, etching or staining I do not know, but some residual effect in lieu of 'ink' is apparently the case. Point here being, the outer surface might have been polished in Miami after completing the installation - that would be the norm; but wherever this 'ink' was were tiny etchings or similar that led us to what we see today. This seems to be the case.

I'm glad you asked these things, it is heartening as it is important to me to continue to explore the possibilities of 2-2-V-1 and to share that with others. This artifact still has many details that are not yet understood; any of those secrets might reveal more about potential ties to NR16020. I believe there is a tendency for many to simply say we 'did not prove it came from the Electra', or that there is 'no hope of that'. Conversely, I believe there is still great potential, and that it is very important to completely wring dry any precious potential artifact that might relate to Earhart. Niku has proven rich with things of that nature: the world didn't permit much of Earhart, if anything, to remain as a grave marker, so if we as an interested people - whatever we believe happened, would truly search, then we owe it to her and ourselves to leave no stone unturned.

I believe that is why such a tremendous effort is going into this, and when some promise emerges, then it helps support the next baby step toward success. It's a bit like Edison inventing the light bulb: by the time he succeeded, he knew far more ways to fail than he did to succeed, but to succeed he had to believe it could be done and not give up. This is something I really hope the greater community can grasp.

2-2-V-1 is a remarkable object with an interesting story all its own. It has tremendous potential in the Earhart case despite the odds: the facts and circumstances of what happened in Miami, the nature of such mod work and the construction type of the Electra, and the picture evidence in that place all have shone a bright light on this odd piece of metal found in the flotsam at Niku all those years ago.

"The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -"

You aren't suggesting that the plexi of the window was still in place, are you? By cover the window, you are saying that the "patch" covers the opening that was cut out during the window installation, yes?

"The 'patch' didn't 'replace' a window, it 'covered' a window (and I actually prefer the term 'cover', as in 'window covering', to 'patch' - but a rose...) -"

You aren't suggesting that the plexi of the window was still in place, are you? By cover the window, you are saying that the "patch" covers the opening that was cut out during the window installation, yes?

I just want to make sure I understand what you are describing. Thanks

Andrew

No - it wouldn't make sense to me for the plexiglass (or whatever was there) to remain.

By 'window' in this sense I mean 'aperture', or the opening within the metal framing; I do not mean the 'transparency' material.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.